Like clockwork, the February distribution numbers are out, and while it's not a milestone like last month when Froyo finally died, there are still some important things to take note of.

Nougat is finally above 1.0% across both 7.0 and 7.1, clocking in at 1.2%. Ice Cream Sandwich and Gingerbeard are now level on 1.0% dead, while Jelly Bean sees a 0.3% decrease. Lollipop has also decreased by 0.5%, but Marshmallow continues to grow by almost 1.0%, continuing the trend of being the largest numbered version. However, Lollipop is still the biggest named release, with 32.9% market share, with 5.0 having the significantly smaller share compared to 5.1, which incidentally appears to have peaked in January, and has now started its decline.

Android version stats, February 2017

Android version

Previous data (%)

Current data (%)

Change (pp)

2.3

1.0

1.0

0

4.0

1.1

1.0

-0.1

4.1

4.0

4.0

0

4.2

5.9

5.7

-0.2

4.3

1.7

1.6

-0.1

4.4

22.6

21.9

-0.7

5.0

10.1

9.8

-0.3

5.1

23.3

23.1

-0.2

6.0

29.6

30.7

+1.1

7.0

0.5

0.9

+0.4

7.1

0.2

0.3

+0.1

Hopefully, as new flagships are released with Nougat on board, the numbers will start to increase, with Marshmallow beginning to fade as this happens. It's the best we can hope for, anyway - especially with Optimum's mistake yesterday. Either way, let's continue to be glad the Froyo deathwatch is over, although the Gingerbread deathwatch hasn't advanced at all this month.

Comments

It's interesting that being that the only devices on 7.1 are Pixels, and custom roms that the installs are still at 1/3 the amount of 7.0. Pretty impressive actually.

Martin

You call this impressive? Damn....

Merkin McGee

I think the overall install base of 7+ is pitiful, and its more so that there is no OEM other than Google essentially that have pushed it. Just was thinking that 7.1 would be lower than it is compared to 7 since a lot of the flagships out there are getting 7.0 now.

Thomas Jager

OnePlus, actually. I don't know how well Pixel has done, but the OnePlus 3(T) is also part of the 7.0 percentile. :)

Colin Richardson

Nexus 5X and... the 6(?) something, is on 7.1 also.

Merkin McGee

True, but my mind kinda lumps all of Pixels, and Nexii together. I would think the desparity between 7.0 to 7.1 would be larger. There has never been a huge amount of Nexus phones. I imagine Google has pushed out enough pixels at this point that equals the run of a couple Nexus devices the way things seem.

Mart

there are around 350.000 active LineageOS installs, most of them should be based on 7.1.1.

When I see the titles on posts like this one I am getting a little angry to be honest... Like it's something good... It's close to revealing the new version of Android and it's still 1%... And some phones are already shipping with Nougat... So this means the old phones are still so much behind... And the worst part, not enough criticism from Blogs/sites/reviewers... :)

Suicide_Note

There's been plenty of criticism throughout the years, but in the end, it's up to OEMs and carriers to get these updates out faster.

Martin

Here is the solution: Google will forbid the pre installed launchers! If OEM want's to have their launcher will upload it to the Google play store like Nova and other launcher and users will install it if they want. Every phone will run stock Android and will be a lot easier to update it faster. :)

Atoqir

It's not only the launcher but driver frameworks. And some have their own settings, notification and lockscreen overrides.

MJ

You must be new... Google can't do that and OEMs would still need to push out updates.

Sergii Pylypenko

It's not about the launcher. The launcher is the simplest part.

Most phones get stuck with old kernel and drivers, and if there's no platform sources update from chipset manufacturer like Quallcomm or MediaTek, you cannot do a thing.

Yes, there are Nougat ROMs for Nexus 7 2012. No, SELinux policy in these ROMs was not updated since KitKat, so it does not include a biggest part of Nougat security fixes.

C64

A skin is so much more than a launcher

UtopiaNH

Phone OSes don't have a hardware abstraction layer, so you have to integrate the hardware drivers into the OS. Android is designed to work on ANY platform, and does not have the driver support baked into the OS like Windows Phone, which means hardware manufacturers don't have to wait for Google to provide the latest support for chipsets, or support some odd hardware.

The open nature of the platform, and the lack of an abstraction layer means its literally impossible for Google to ship the OS like that, unless it designates specific hardware (such as with the Android One programme), or picks a specific phone to support (like Nexus/Pixel).

What kind of hits are we talking about? I've wondered for years why I couldn't update my phone like I do my Linux laptop, and this sounds like a reasonable answer.

UtopiaNH

I'm not certain, but I've heard 20-50% battery life reduction being bandied about. Significant. Performance hits are also there, but are less of an issue than the battery.

It was certainly very very high in the early days of the operating system, I'm curious to see if they ever start going in that direction with improvements in hardware efficiency.

And yes, they removed the Linux hardware abstraction layer for Android.

David Prieto

Wow, that's an awful lot.

UtopiaNH

The main problem is you are adding an extra layer of processing. The OS no longer 'talks' directly to the hardware. Its faster than an API since its low level code but its still a lot of additional processing power as you translate each command to the hardware below.

Solutions when you aren't limited on size or battery are very different than solutions for tiny mobile devices with a very limited battery technology.

Just think about how much trouble wearables have had. Imagine how bad android's battery life would be compared to Apple if we implemented an abstraction layer.

Its certainly possible again thay the numbers aren't as large relatively now since screens are the biggest consumer of power (whereas old hardware it was always the processor), so overhead on the processor is relatively less important. I have no idea. But I imagine such a change at this point would be even bigger than Dalvik to ARM, and would also have the unintended consequences that come with this model such as bricked phones.

makapav

The real reason is that Qualcomm does not want to update drivers for chipsets older than 18 months. Non of the manufacturers have the balls to throw their weight around because there is no alternative to Qualcomm. If there was ever a compelling reason for Google to start chip design and OEM manufacturing - this is it. They need to invest in creating their own processor and radio/modem.

Knowledgeborn Allah

This is nonsense. Google can still push software updates to devices without newer chips and drivers. They just choose not to do that because their OEM partners want their consumer base to upgrade to new devices every 2 or 3 years. It barely has anything to do with Qualcomm, and it has more to do with OEMs trying to sell more hardware. Google doesn't care about that, because they're a Search and services company. As long as a device can retain their services, they don't care what version of Android it runs, or if it runs Android at all.

UtopiaNH

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about what-so-ever.

Things are hardly as simple as that. Maintaining software is overhead, and a free service their primary competitor gives to consumers for free. Software security holes are also a major liability for those providing it, and if it can be blamed on a single source like Windows, then the company responsible is going to be nailed. Currently Google is insulated by the OEMs and carriers that are sharing liability, and thus far consumer demand for software updates is limited and the liability hasn't bitten anyone. Carriers currently see the bigger liability/threat would be disruption to their network and get too much money off kickbacks from adware on devices to give up control. OEMs only care about software updates relative to Apple and eachother and since they are all using Qualcom no one OEM is going to get drivers updated for longer than another.

Google cannot in fact push updates without updating drivers. With Nexus devices Google has insisted on all the code including drivers being open sourced which has caused problems at times as oems have been resistant and often not followed through. For example qualcom forced google to use their own solution for software based encryption with the nexii because Qualcom refused to open source their hardware encryption methods.

This open sourcing has allowed Google to update devices driver code without Qualcom, or other hardware manufacturers so they can push out android updates much quicker.

But if the code is closed source, Google cannot push significant updates to devices without taking the big chance of bricking them. The driver code is directly integrated with the OS as the OS makes direct calls to the hardware with instructions that are defined by the drivers.

Linux and Windows and MacOS all have an extra layer in the motherboard driver/bios that obscures a direct call to the specific hardware and allows for more hardware flexibility. None of the major mobile operating systems have this extra abstraction layer and each has designed a different way around it. Android lets the hardware producer compile android with the drivers it wants. Windows phone ships the OS with driver support for specific hardware baked in (and thus significantly slowing down the pace of hardware improvements and limiting OEMs) and Apple only supports its limited entirely self producer hardware with their own custom drivers. All these solutions are different ways of handling the same problem.

I think your cynicism blinds you to the technical reality. This is not a simple problem and not something simple google is being lazy about. It might have been solved differently if market forces where different yes, or Google would have more incentive to solve it, but its not as simple as you make out and I am not wrong about this as you state. I am not deflecting.

Knowledgeborn Allah

It sounds like you're making excuses... If things are as complicated as you say on the OEM level, but Google's platform was excluded due to open-sourcing driver code, then why are the Nexus and Pixel devices also limited to Android updates for only 2 years? Why can't they extend that period of time to something more reasonable, like Microsoft and Apple do? Wouldn't that give Android consumers more of an incentive to buy Pixel (and previously Nexus) devices? Why wouldn't Google do that, as a means to push their product?

The answer is simple. They put expiration dates on their devices so that consumers will be more inclined to stay "up-to-date". It's called capitalism. Many Pixel users are going to be concerned with updates, and Google knows this. To stay current on the newest software, you ultimately need to stay current on the newest hardware. Thus starts the cycle of buying new devices to maintain new software updates, while Google mandates the need for security updates on a monthly basis to stay "safe", sustained for 3 years. After 3 years, your device is now unsafe, necessitating that you buy another one, etc. If they wanted to do things differently, they could. They don't because it's not profitable.

UtopiaNH

Some of the Nexus devices went beyond that 2 year update span, despite Qualcom not supporting the driver update. Google made the update themselves.

However, Qualcomm's short support period also applies to Google's devices, and they haven't been open sourcing them lately. Note the Nexus 6 had major issues with the Nougat update and that had more to do with Qualcom refusing to open source the driver (and also part of why the N6 was using that slow software based encryption that made it perform so poorly early on).

I am hardly making excuses. If Google wants to play with Apple it will have to start doing custom processors and its own design and drivers across the board. It needs to have enough power and clout as a buyer to force smaller hardware/component developers to provide google the source code and it must cut Qualcomm out of the picture and eat the extra licensing fees that Qualcomm is being sued by Apple for levying.

If Google wants to actually do this seriously thats the only way they can do it and unless they go full ahead into that category they won't ever be doing more than dabbling as an OEM.

If Qualcomm didn't have a monopoly on US radio band LTEs, like if Nvidia or TI were still producing chipsets, either of them would probably step up and offer longer support or open sourced drivers, but TI crashed out of the market and Nvidia always overpromised and underdelivered on the actual chipset designs and didnt have the die shrink fabrication capability to compete. Google certainly tried those companies though and it led to disasters like the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 9.

Its a flawed system but there are a multitude of competing factors that largely come down to consumers.

If people stopped buying android phones all together due to the support, went with Apple, and long term support was the biggest deciding factor then OEMs would demand longer contract periods for driver updates and Qualcom or a competitor would be offering it or google would have been forced to engineer a solution around it.

I am curious to see if Google goes down the custom processor road. They started to with the Moto X but then decided to sell the company and never got to a second step of that road.

If the Pixel 2 has anything custom in the processing line I expect they are going that route but to get that kind of dev done its going to take years. They need to contract a fabricator, hire people or buy a company with the experience to design, etc.

Or they could just use base ARM schemes but then the devices wouldnt compete with Qualcom or exynos or even mediatek which all customize to varying degrees after years of experience.

Knowledgeborn Allah

Perhaps you're right... I just think it's ridiculous that Google refuses to support their own devices. If it's primarily based on the SOC, then they need to use their money and influence to "compel" Qualcomm to change their policy, they need to switch to a different manufacturer, or they need to develop their own chip. But again, I highly doubt Google will ever legitimately develop their own SOC, because their money comes from Search and services. They don't really care that much about Android as a platform - those are just devices that have Google's search and services pre-installed and easily accessible, so Google can make more money from them, based on software.

At the end of the day, they don't make any real money from Android, outside of the Pixel lineup (which probably isn't much). They make money from Search, Play Store and Play Services, YouTube, Google Now, ad revenue and distribution, Chrome, and other cloud services. As long as they can have their software and services running across many different platforms, that's all that really matters. Android updates are the least of their concerns.

UtopiaNH

Intel doesn't have to update its processor drivers /every/ time windows updates. Sometimes its had to with major overhauls like with Windows 10, but generally it doesn't due to the hardware abstraction layer. However, not having a controlled tested environment of hardware drivers and consumers having the ability to adjust, install, or update/not update these on PCs has lead to the nightmares that Windows PC management can be.

With phones, a hardware abstraction layer would leave less for Qualcom to have to maintain and update, but the performance and battery hits are /significant/ and problematic.

Qualcom getting a monopoly on US processors is a problem, but they've also been by far the best chipset manufacturer about open sourcing their drivers with Nexus phones, and providing consistent updates. However, as you said the short lifespan of supported updates is definitely a problem.

The fact is, there isn't enough consumer demand for updates to drive either the OEMs, or therefore the chipset providers they're buying from to increase the demand for it.

Really though, the main threat and need for phone updates is security. While we love getting updates with new features, expectations of free improvements to your system are not something anyone has really ever provided before phones, and only really demanded at all because of Apple, and even they aren't providing all the new features with each update.

What Google needs to do is completely sandbox security updates out entirely from OS updates, and be able to distribute them over the play store. Taking the carrier and OEM out of the picture. If they can put all software faults besides driver issues on something they can take liability for, they can push the liability for unupdated drivers on the manufacturers and let lawsuits start targeting them for insecure devices.

Liability is pretty much the only market force that will change this, and as it stands right now, everyone can avoid it by pointing fingers, and in the end consumers are the ones being screwed.

Suicide_Note

That's been talked about for years, but it's probably too late in the game for that to happen.

MicroNix

It's not plain Android vs skinned that determines when a phone is updated. It's QA and customers expectations of the update not breaking their phones. When you have less than 1% of the market (aka Nexus/Pixel) it's aka lot different than when you own the majority of the market with millions and millions of customers all over the globe.

I attribute it to how much longer old phones can remain useful. Even if the original owner replaces their phones on a schedule, they're handing down the older phones to relatives and kids. Just think, a Nexus 4 is still a completely serviceable phone, and that's relatively ancient with support ending on Android 5.1.1.

shonangreg

I have an old tough Casio on 2.3.3, I think it is, that I still use for GPS tracking. That is about all I use it for, but it works great in that role. It still appears in the statistics above.

To the larger point of updates, though, we were initially led to believe that carriers were the bottlenecks. Now, with tablets and a plethora of cheap SIM-unlocked phones also rarely updating, we can see this isn't true. So why is it still happening?

Maybe it is just profit maximization. No one competes for the infrequent purchaser market.

Or, maybe when Google was launching android, talking to Sony, HTC, etc., Google offered them something in return for switching from using their own OSes. Who would have gone into a market where the phone is far less frequently replaced? No one. But what could Google offer that we don't already know about? Limited updates.

How they did it I don't know. Maybe Qualcomm produces drivers for only 18 months. I'm sure there are dozens of ways obsolescence could have been baked into the android cake. Articulating what they could be would make for an interesting read . . . However it might have been done, with phones that would also be replaced in about two years, the manufacturers had far more incentive to make the switch.

Android, even on Nexus, has not moved much beyond this to this day. Chrome is different. 5-year support for Chromebooks software wise is Google's policy.

If Google has to rely on a new OS to escape from the deal it made with handset makers, maybe Chrome, android-on-Chrome, or andromeda will fill that role. And with a Pixel line to compete on its own with, Google has more leverage now. I sure hope this is how it all might play out.

davidhoffman5

Brand new phones in stores with Kit Kat. It cannot just be getting rid of old inventory. They are making these things at least within the previous fiscal year of the company if not this fiscal year. Straight Talk, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc all with very old Android on new in box phones. Google has an out of control open source situation. Now that the smoke is out of the box the cell phone manufacturers and cellular service companies have no intention of even moderately keeping up with Android versions.

I thought it was pretty obvious that the answer is quite simply that there are more devices in existence now. The more phones there are, the smaller impact that each individual sale has on the distribution numbers. If anything, it's astounding how up-to-date everybody is.

Braden Farmer

It really is. I'm running a Nexus 4 with a 7.1.1 ROM and it's just as snappy as my Nexus 5X.

fijisiv

My wife and I each had a Nexus 4 and she was of the mindset "you can pry it from my cold dead hands." Well maybe not that far. I ended buying her a gold S7 and once she saw how pretty it was, THEN she reluctantly switched. Point is, for the large majority of users out there, if it runs Facebook and Candy Crush then they don't feel the need to upgrade, security updates be damned.

ATF6

Even I don't care about security updates and I'm as much of as enthusiast as you can imagine.

bekifft

That's true, and it wouldn't be a problem if older phones got any updates at all. That's how those guys across the fence can claim to have 90%+ usage of the latest version. Cause they release updates for their four year old phones. Google has got to stop pretending this isn't a problem.

Rod

Close? About 9 months to go still.

ustill812

Still waiting in nougat for the s7e on tmobile. As for I gingerbread, I still have a old phone that's running it but it needs a new battery.

Colin Richardson

No previous / Change table in the article?

Phil Oakley

Temporary issues with WordPress. Will be up later.

Colin Richardson

Thank you :D

Dmitry Stepanushkin

So Google graph shows, that most of people don't care about new phones with Nougat or Nougat update.

Phil Oakley

We already knew that though - most consumers don't really care about versions or updates. My SO has a Moto E 2016 on Marshmallow, and isn't at all bothered about Nougat. If it was available, sure, she'd take it, but otherwise, meh.

I'm not terribly bothered that my carry phone (the S7edge) doesn't have Nougat yet. Granted, I have 4 other devices running it, but those are used mostly for testing. I want it on there, especially if it will fix even half of what's wrong with this damn phone, but it's not keeping me awake at night. Besides, with the wackadoo side-effects that tend to come with Samsung updates, I'm always nervous about receiving one.

Ambroos

I'm a developer and a huge fan of updates in general, but when my Xperia Z5 was updated from Marshmallow to Nougat I honestly barely noticed any difference. The new emoji's are cool, I guess? Split screen is only very occasionally useful (and I had Sony's small apps which did something similar). I don't think I've really seen any other significant new things?

Randroid

Custom Quick Settings toggles are the big thing I wish I had on my phone. It only isn't updated because Xposed. I could have it if I wanted.

Ambroos

Ah. Sony has had their own set of quick toggles for ages, and the Lollipop-style ones have been customisable for as long as they have been available. You couldn't get third-party ones of course, but they had a nice selection available and you could configure the order and selection for ages.

Honestly, if you have a decent manufacturer skin (basically: Sony's), there is rarely anything new in major Android releases. Sony does updates of their own skin in their own time, and those are usually WAY more exciting and come with way more new features than an Android release. Major Android version updates are probably only really relevant for Nexus/Pixel/AOSP devices...

Randroid

AOSP has it's own set of quick toggles too, I just want custom quick toggles. You know, those added by 3rd party apps (like my own app.)

It's honestly something that I've wanted for YEARS, even before AOSP had its own quick toggles. As soon as I saw quick toggles in a custom ROM I wanted to be able to make my own. Now I finally can, and I'm waiting until XPosed gets updated before getting them. (Although, I do have them on my Pixel C, cuz that has Nougat installed.)

jenen

In nougat granular notifications plus the feature to reply directly from the notification it's a big improvement for me

francoism

Considering how bad of a job Samsung is doing updating the S7s to Nougat, I'm not surprised.

Kanoosh

damn, 1% is sad when you consider we are only a few months away from the next android version announcment , and like 8 months away from release.. phones are barely shipping with Nougat ..

i think that google will be doing incremental changes from here on out, for a while.. changing anything significant would further alienate everyone on earlier versions.

i loved MM and Nougat isn't that big of a difference so being on either wasn't a HUGE deal , but srsly , google needs to release that OEM/carrier update ratings system to give them a nudge to update.

someone755

This is why I no longer care about Android updates. For me, and for anyone not willing to shell out ten Benjamins on a phone, the newest Android version is the one that was announced one year ago.
I'm quite happy on Marshmallow, I really can't wait to see what they do at 2016's IO! I hear N is gonna be called Nutella.

What are you talking about? Android N just got released not that long ago. It takes the OEMs time to build a stable stock ROM around it. And we've seen time and time again how bad things are when that process is rushed. Nobody bitches when Microsoft didn't update their computer to the latest version of Windows for free. In fact, now that it happens automatically, people are quite upset (ironically enough). Even when you give people what they want, they complain anyway because they realize that it isn't what they actually wanted after all.

Enough with the impatience and entitlement attitude already.

stuartajc

"Gingerbeard" - love it!

YaKillaCJ

That moment when you have 4 devices still on Marshmallow. Not because they can't. Naa naa, you're smart enough to pick good devices with good update expectations and just as important, good dev support. Why?
Xposed
^_^

Randroid

My phone is on MM for the same reason. My Pixel C is the only device I have on Nougat, because I have no need for XPosed on that.

Weird... I have four Android devices (2 phones, tablet, and a NVIDIA SHIELD TV) and Nougat is at 75% for me. Granted my old phone has a custom ROM (which I could also put on my tablet to be at 100%). Another phone I bought last year and sold has been updated to Nougat. These Android distribution numbers are totally meaningless to me. LOL

The situation won't change until OEM start updating their phones in a timely fashion and probably more importantly customers actually care what version of Android their phone is on.

Zee

How many phones actually have Nougat on them? At the least it's got to say there's quite a few Pixels out there since the majority of the Nougat numbers would come from Pixel phones I would assume.

Sruly J

1.2% of 1.5 billion Android devices = 18 million.

However;
1. 1.5 billion is inaccurate since the last number we got is 1.4 billion in 2015.

2. It doesn't include devices without Google Play Services (whether because people removed them, or the devices didn't come with them).

jcopernicus

Those charts only show devices that use the play store, not all android devices.

Sruly J

Still.

2015 they announced 1.4 billion active devices.

Even if we subtract some, we still have to add some to compensate for the roughly 17 months since the number was announced.

Testraindrop

Actually its the minority (0.3% of the 1.2%), as the Pixels are currently the only devices I know running officially 7.1.
Count all custom Roms also out as they likely not be on 7.0, but on 7.1.

Means Pixels are even less relevant in the statistics.

Gabor

2/3 of all Android devices are stuck 2 or more generations back. Meaning that in most cases whatever version of Android you buy, is also the final version for your device. If that were not bad enough, Google has started to reserve some features for their own pricey product lines.
My strategy to handle this disappointing situation is very simple: I have adjusted the budget that I am willing to spend on an Android device to the length of the expected support cycle.

diese

This is how I am going to handle this situation: next phone will be an iPhone.

Now hate me.

Gabor

I would probably hate myself spending over €1000 for a mobile phone, but if you feel ok doing that, that is perfectly fine for me.

someone755

I think it's fair to say that the iPhone doesn't cost 1000€. In Hungary (reportedly the most expensive Apple market), the 32GB model starts at around 800€. Get the bigger brother, and up the storage, and yes, you'll see the price increase, but really you're paying the exact same price as for a Pixel, Galaxy S, Note, HTC, or LG flagship.

But at this rate, you're only getting 2 years of use out of your Android device (meaning the price-per-year would be in the 400-500€ range). With an iPhone, you get 5 years of updates from launch day (which would bring even the price of a 1000€ model down to around 200€ each year).
Add to this the resell value of iPhones (can still get half its initial price after two years), and you see that in the long run, iPhones are significantly cheaper (assuming you don't buy every single dongle). I can buy a used SGS6, a device from 2015, for 300€ at the most, and the GS8 hasn't even launched yet!

I understand different devices fit different people, as I myself use Android devices, but it's inane to use wrong data to try and convince people that the platform you support is superior. Be objective, and realize that this is Apple's advantage over the Android ecosystem, but also keep in mind that your needs might not be the same as the needs of whomever you're holding a conversation with.

abc

You wont spend under $1000 for a phone that will be updated for at least 4 years, but you will pay $750+ for a phone that will only be updated for two? OK.

Gabor

I have spent €150, not $750+, on a Moto G4 + €30 for a 128GB SD card. Makes a total of €180. I have all the features which I need, including a large HD screen and dual SIM. The device came with Android 6 and should have a usable life cycle of at least 2 years. So, the cost per year is around €90,
An iPhone7+ with 128GB sells for around €1100 in my country. Only if I can use the iPhone for more 12 years, it will become more economical. Regretfully, the battery will be gone after probably 3 years of usage. Right?

Serge Cebrian

sure spend your money on 2 good updates and one final crap update that ruins your device making you think you need the next best one

charlie Jason

Anything below 6.0 is unacceptable if you ask me.

Dennis Fluttershy

They should at least kill off everything before 4.3
(Improved necessary material layout features in that version)

I don't want to start a big argument, but this is one of the main reasons why I chose to get an iPhone 7 Plus this year. The fact that only about 1% of all active Android devices are on a software released about a half a year ago?! That's very disappointing every year. Not only that, the fact that only 30% of users have a software over 2 years old (Marshmallow) is even more frustrating.

The biggest factor for me when choosing a phone is getting the latest updates. Even with a Nexus/Pixel, software updates are for only 2 years. WIth Apple, I have the assurance that I will be getting updates for 4+ years, if I decide to keep this phone.

Naga Sridhar

Just curious, what brings you to this article?

Nicholas Castano

I work as a Validation Engineer for a company that uses phones every day. I use almost every brand of Android phones, as well as iPhones.

So you could say it's work related.

.Monkey

Why do you people buy different phones with different operating systems just for updates? If you like iOS, you buy iOS, if you like Android, you buy Android. I don't care that my Android phone won't get an update 2 years down the like because I know I'll still have more features than a 5 year old iPhone.

My S7 is still on Nougat beta. It's been well over a month since the last stability update. Samsung closed the beta near the end of December but still aren't ready to release a stable update yet. At this rate I'd guess for a stable 7.1.1 release around October, let alone 7.1.2.

The percentage of devices still on kitkat shows how much imbalanced Android is. Something should be done of this. No point just releasing stats every month.

Grey

The Pixel is selling so well

Tieland

Every month these are published, I'm amazed by how many people have older phones. I guess I'm just surrounded by tech nerds with the newest phones all the time. I don't think I can name a single person running Lollipop, not to mention almost a quarter of Android users running KitKat

marcusmarcus2

Just got my wife off of Jelly Bean (4.1.2) because Cricket or Moto or both refused to update it and Neither would unlock the bootloader, so I could not update through a custom ROM either. Now she is on an unlocked Moto G4 with Marshmallow (hopefully Nougat soon). She was not having any issues with Jelly Bean, and she would not have updated herself, I just got a good deal on the G4. I know most of my family have older devices as well that work just fine for them.

Brian Ferris

Quite shit to be honest...

NunjaBusiness

NO Honeycomb? NONE? I find that hard to imagine.

Sruly J

The number of devices running 3.0 are less than .1%, so they wouldn't qualify for this chart.

b0b

Google, please put back Froyo numbers to troll AP and /r/Android crowds. This is an order.

Man I must live in a bubble, a good portion of my friends/family are on Nougat, including me (LG G5).

Pneen

I'm here on an s4 running lollipop! Hi people

Pneen

Google should make security updates separate from the OS. So that manufacturers wouldn't be slowing that down. These numbers are pretty sad.

Knowledgeborn Allah

They've pretty much done that to a large extent. Their monthly security patches are still run through the Android OS, but most of the linear security mechanisms established through the platform run through Google Play Services. That covers most of the security concerns people have when it comes to Android security on a software level.

Pedro Nóbrega da Costa

still more people using ICS + GB than Nougat...awesome.

is it me or nougat is increasing waaaay slower than LP and MM?

Dennis Fluttershy

"Ice Cream Sandwich and Gingerbeard are now level on 1.0% dead"
No, they're 99.0% dead, and we'll watch them grow to 100% dead.